Comments on Noteworthy: I've challenged Ed Cone to ban me from his blog

Looks like Bubba twin has broken though Ed's Banning security service....lol......What I said was "Rachel Lea Hunter comes across as batshit crazy and completely unsuited for a seat on the state's high court."Which was true, although I quickly apologized for the harshness of my language, and later apologized to her in person. I am far from perfect, but I do try to learn as I go along.* Stumbling Ed trying to present a fair and balance opinion like the Fox network ---Well, here is an excerpt from Ms. Hunter's book about you and other particularly bad shills from the mainstream media:Another reporter is Ed Cone of the Greensboro News & Record. He also has his own blogging site. He is a friend of John Hood of the John Locke Foundation/Carolina Journal. Remember that the beast controls both sides? Its has its foot in each camp. John Hood from the right, Ed Cone from the left.Ed Cone long ago abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity and ethics, even going beyond all bounds for defaming a public figure as established in New York Times v. Sullivan,[1] in that he acted with actual malice. His task was to portray me in the worst light imaginable. On one occasion, his comment that I was missing was seen by my campaign advisor, who suggested that Ed Cone call me at the office. He did and he reached me. I was where I was supposed to be.However, this did not put an end to his attacks, which became even more vicious and vitriolic as the campaign went on. He called me “batshit crazy” and " nuts" after he had the gall to tell me earlier that he hoped people were decent in light of my brain tumor. He also characterized my tumor as a "tawdry campaign gimmick."No, Mr. Cone, the brain tumor is very real and is hardly a tawdry campaign gimmick. I cannot remember what normal is like. I have lost my balance nerve, my hearing and my sense of taste and smell has been severely blunted. I cannot enjoy the simple pleasure of taking a walk because I experience a sense that something is not quite right, which I describe as “dizziness,” although others may describe it as a feeling of being on a ship at sea. However it is described, I seldom get up from my desk because of this.I have occasional sharp pains in my head. The itchiness in my scalp comes and goes as does the numbness. My face is paralyzed on the right side. Not only can I never smile again, I have to drink everything through a straw and I have difficulty eating. When the numbness acts up, it feels as though I am drooling on the right side and I occasionally slur my words because of the facial paralysis. If I could give up everything I have just to return to normal, I would do it.The tumor itself is not cancerous. However, this kind of tumor can be just as life-threatening. The bones of the skull have grown and fused together by the time of adulthood. The skull thus cannot expand; it is like a fixed case. Acoustic neuromas do not grow in the brain tissue itself; they grown on the auditory nerve. If left to grow, the brain cannot expand as it is within the enclosed skull and the tumor starts pushing portions of the brain out of the way and begins interfering with brain function. That was the cause of me crashing into walls, my inability to walk over uneven or rough ground, my right eye drying out and the other problems I experienced.When the tumor grew back, the doctor said that I would have significant problems if something were not done. Those were his words, not mine. I did not make the tumor an issue during my 2004 campaign because the tumor had not been diagnosed yet.However, after I found out about the tumor in January of 2005, I made it a part of my campaign. I am as well as I am going to ever be whenever I am seated and I only have difficulty hearing in crowded settings, like social events or crowded restaurants. My appearance would of course have no relevance to my ability to hear and decide cases. As a result, I did not feel that the tumor and my symptoms would significantly affect my duties as a justice in the event that I was elected. But I felt that the voters had[...]

And so here's another thread trashed by Connie Mack. Sheesh.*jayceeDon't worry jaycee! What is trash to some is also a glorious home to trailer park residences.TO RUN OR NOT TO RUN? Dear Friends and Voters:Well, the dust has now settled from the frenzied election filing last week. Judging from the tracking service, many in the Establishment were all over my website, asking themselves, “will she or won’t she?” and breathing a huge sign of relief that I did not file. Others were no doubt disappointed by my decision. For those in the Establishment wing of the beast, its not quite time to uncork the champagne yet. You have not beaten me. I am NOT vanquished nor have I given up. Prior to filing, I evaluated running for seats on the Court of Appeals as well as the Supreme Court. My decision ultimately not to run was for several reasons. First, most of the seats on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals had a female member of the Democratic Party who was running. This meant that if I got into the race, there be a primary (one of my rules – never run in a primary if it can be avoided). Moreover, as the candidates were female, this meant that I would have female opposition and the female vote would be divided between the two of us. Neither I nor any Democrat would appeal to the hard-core 28%’ers that make up the base of what is left of the Grand Old (Pervert) Party. Hence, by splitting the vote, there was a possibility that the Republican candidate would survive the primary and proceed to run in the fall. Yes, I am aware that this is a non-partisan race, but from my prior experiences, the races became anything but non-partisan. It would be better if the political parties completely got out of the race, and that goes for Democrats (remember there (UN)Fair Judges.net from 2006?) as well as Republicans. But it is not a perfect world and wishing for political parties to leave the judicial election alone is not going to happen anytime soon. And I am not going to assist in any way in electing Republicans who are controlled by the Puppet Master, Art Pope. There is a more important reason I decided not to run, however. It touches on my personal life and that of my husband. Some may consider me selfish for espousing such reasons. Think that if you choose, but Connie and I sacrificed more than any other candidate in recent memory. When I ran in 2006, I had other individuals tell me “I wish I had your courage but I am trying to get my time in with the state/county so I can get my pension.” Not one of them had to endure what Connie and I did. We laid it on the line financially. Aside from the political vitriol and the hateful comments by the mainstream media, we had to endure criminal investigations and being harassed by the police. And we let a lot of things go, including our health. Minor things were neglected by me because of the brain tumor. Connie also let things go to his detriment. Before I ran for office, he had major vascular surgery and was slow to recover. The campaigns took their toll on Connie. Last year, he had to have a pacemaker/defibrillator implanted. Now, his arteries have clogged back up and we are waiting for an appointment with the vascular surgeon. So for all of these reasons, I have chosen not to run at this time and will allow other candidates to step up to the plate. That does not mean that I cannot serve in other ways. I am still going to comment as time and work permit upon things I see happening, both on the national forum as well as that in our own state. Which brings me to the second part of my remarks. I have spoken in the past of the candidacy of Ron Paul and Congressman Walter Jones. However, both have done some things of late which have caused me to think. Both are good men and we need more individuals like this in Washington, DC. However, Walter Jones has been in Congress for over fourteen years; Ron Paul for eighteen if you count his first stint from 1976 to 1984. What is wrong with this picture? I think back to Cincinnatus, the[...]

Moreover the excerpt is relevant in that Rachel speaks to the double standards employed by those who are now scrambling together a defense to justify delinking and banning those who do not worship at the same altars.

C'mon, Connie.....don't be afraid to reveal yourself.* BubbaBubba! Your site won't let me secretly reveal myself, so I had no choice except to correct another lie by some of your conservative friends. Below is part of a chapter in Rachel,s well read book about state wide Judical campaigns that is being accepted as the role model for the future. I would suggest that you read it.It might improve you and Ed's image in the real world! ------------------------------------Another reporter is Ed Cone of the Greensboro News & Record. He also has his own blogging site. He is a friend of John Hood of the John Locke Foundation/Carolina Journal. Remember that the beast controls both sides? Its has its foot in each camp. John Hood from the right, Ed Cone from the left.Ed Cone long ago abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity and ethics, even going beyond all bounds for defaming a public figure as established in New York Times v. Sullivan,[1] in that he acted with actual malice. His task was to portray me in the worst light imaginable. On one occasion, his comment that I was missing was seen by my campaign advisor, who suggested that Ed Cone call me at the office. He did and he reached me. I was where I was supposed to be.However, this did not put an end to his attacks, which became even more vicious and vitriolic as the campaign went on. He called me “batshit crazy” and " nuts" after he had the gall to tell me earlier that he hoped people were decent in light of my brain tumor. He also characterized my tumor as a "tawdry campaign gimmick."No, Mr. Cone, the brain tumor is very real and is hardly a tawdry campaign gimmick. I cannot remember what normal is like. I have lost my balance nerve, my hearing and my sense of taste and smell has been severely blunted. I cannot enjoy the simple pleasure of taking a walk because I experience a sense that something is not quite right, which I describe as “dizziness,” although others may describe it as a feeling of being on a ship at sea. However it is described, I seldom get up from my desk because of this.I have occasional sharp pains in my head. The itchiness in my scalp comes and goes as does the numbness. My face is paralyzed on the right side. Not only can I never smile again, I have to drink everything through a straw and I have difficulty eating. When the numbness acts up, it feels as though I am drooling on the right side and I occasionally slur my words because of the facial paralysis. If I could give up everything I have just to return to normal, I would do it.The tumor itself is not cancerous. However, this kind of tumor can be just as life-threatening. The bones of the skull have grown and fused together by the time of adulthood. The skull thus cannot expand; it is like a fixed case. Acoustic neuromas do not grow in the brain tissue itself; they grown on the auditory nerve. If left to grow, the brain cannot expand as it is within the enclosed skull and the tumor starts pushing portions of the brain out of the way and begins interfering with brain function. That was the cause of me crashing into walls, my inability to walk over uneven or rough ground, my right eye drying out and the other problems I experienced.When the tumor grew back, the doctor said that I would have significant problems if something were not done. Those were his words, not mine. I did not make the tumor an issue during my 2004 campaign because the tumor had not been diagnosed yet.However, after I found out about the tumor in January of 2005, I made it a part of my campaign. I am as well as I am going to ever be whenever I am seated and I only have difficulty hearing in crowded settings, like social events or crowded restaurants. My appearance would of course have no relevance to my ability to hear and decide cases. As a result, I did not feel that the tumor and my symptoms would significantly affect my duties as a justice in the event that I was elected. But I felt that the voters had a right[...]

I think it has more to do with propping up his fragile ego, the abiding need to always be right, and the necessity of marginalizing anyone who doesn't kiss his Blogger King ring, as we have discussed several times.

His emotional insincerity, insecurity, and immaturity are on hand for all to see, at least for the ones who make the effort to look beyond the facade, and into his inherent phoniness.

I think what Brenda said is accurate for the most part. I have my ups and downs with Ed, and when he gets on my nerves too bad, I just stay away and use my own blog to deal with him or what is said on his site.

I read Cone sometimes, usually when Fred or Bubba directs me to an interesting thread.I guess that's why Cone's is one of the few places from which I have NOT been banned. Lex banned me on both his N&R and personal blogs because I proved him to be a liar time after time. JR banned me for my constant questions about Lorraine Ahearn's professional conduct. Whenever I post at Cone's I'm usually just ridiculed by him because I'm a right-winger and therefore CAN'T understand why the liberal way is the only way.Keep up the fight, Bubba!

I'm still deciding what course of action I will take about Cone and the rest of the bottom feeding Usual Suspects.

One thing I am considering is making The Cone Project a regular feature of this blog, in much the same way as Sam Spagnola did at The CA for a period of time.

He can ban me from his blog, but he can't stop me from commenting about the things he writes. He will NOT avoid being held accountable by me.

I encourage all to stay on top of the situation, and comment when appropriate.

I will link his posts here, and make appropriate comments.

One other thing: Along with several others in the blogosphere, he has been permanently banned from any benefit of my goodwill. I will make the knowledge known in any public venues far and wide, when appropriate.

Expanding on Joe & Brenda's thoughts, Bubba (which I have expressed to you in private), I think that there has been a deliberate effort on the part of the original "in crowd" in the blogosphere to marginalize bloggers who do not tote the water. It starts (of course) with the name-calling and "conings" (a tactic not unique to Cone), and character assasination. In my case, I've sensed an even more deliberate "silent treatment" from "the gang" since JR made his "New Years Resolution" last year to essentially ignore my comments. It was not even subtle. Being banned is just another step along their thin-skinned yellow-brick-road to nowhere. Who cares?JR is going to be gone soon anyway (and I'll say it again, from the cheap seats in Randolph County, it cannot happen fast enough for me). The blogs have not worked out in the way he hoped they would. This is, in large part, because the premise of "bring us new & different stories & perspectives and we'll tell them" WAS A LIE. My sense is that whatever corporate entity takes over is going to make some very drastic changes with the N&R's blogs. My hope is that they will expand and new & exciting directions - like being a real jumping ground for stories that might not otherwise get traction. But I predict the lid will be slammed down tight.JR's grand citizen journalistic experiment failed because the premise was false. The N&R blogs (and the blogs/columnists it "teamed" with) were about furthering an agenda rather than going in new/different directions. The N&R made promises, did not keep them, and reader confidence continued to drop. Alas, I don't think the new owners will have the wisdom to work on the premise/promise that JR failed to deliver.I've digressd. My point is that these blogger marginalization tactics did not work inasmuch it only made me madder - and inspired me to work harder on my own blog - which is now being read by the locals despite the local paper/powers-that-be doing everything they possibly could to pretend I did not exist.I'm the Rhino in Asheboro.The benefit is that I now have a body of work that I can refer back to as events unfold in the way I warned/predicted they would.And again, I ask you. In terms of CHANGING (the buzz word of the day) anything . . . what have these local bloggers actually accomplished? What have they had the courage to acutally do? Day in and day out - hot air - it's an echo chamber over at Cone's (of like-minded voices) and very little else.In my own case, I came to these citizen-journalists and begged for help - in a local situation that I've proven is so relevant to current events in so many ways. I'm supposed to "get over it" and "move on", but God bless the TRC? Huh? JR, Cone & Company dangled the carrot and taunted and then ridiculed me for believing the hype. NONE of them have bothered to look at ANY of the evidence as they spew their vitriol. Screw that. These people have had their chance to be "relevant" and they missed the boat. I would suggest that you/Sam/others ignore Cone's blog in the way he/others have ignored/de-linked/marginalized yours/ours. Cone needs controversy and entertainment (in the form of arguments and blog-battles) to keep the traffic up.Post here. I want to see more here. Pick up a thought at Cone's and "top-level" it here. Give me something to read and link to. Moderate comments if you feel it is necessary (or not). It's ironic in that since I set standards of behavior & dialogue on my blog - I've not had to moderate a comment out in quite a long while.As Sue has said (in her many belittlements of me), DON'T FEED the Conemonster.And yes, banning is a bad move. It says more about the banner than t[...]

I really don’t know what all the fuss is about Bubba since I found Ed Cone and the other “Greensboro Blogger Elites” to be beneath my contempt long ago. The old guard stood by and let all that is bad happen to Greensboro and somehow have convinced themselves that they have done the right thing by letting the tax payers be fleeced and criminals and/or incompetents take over our governing bodies.

They have been, and continue to be, the ones who stand by and allow the deterioration of Greensboro politics and therefore Greensboro/Guilford County as a decent place to live. Then they berate those of us who see the slime for trying to do something about it as if we are the problem. I simply refused to be intimidated by them and have told some where to stuff their “advice for your own good”. They have tried to have me ostracized but failed. So from time to time they come back and make snide remarks to which I either ignore or slap them back down when they dare to stick their heads up. As I told one of them awhile back when she visited my site, "Get to Hell off my site. I don't bother with fools." Tho I haven't banned anyone (altho one of them claims I have). Sorry 'bout that but I don't know how to do the technical thing to ban anyone.

I must admit I have banned myself from Ed’s site twice now and hope this time I can stick to it. But, others refer me to a particular conversation on his site as Joe did the other day and somehow I get trapped again trying to reason with Ed’s convoluted logic. It can not be done People! Best just to let him go his misinformed way with his like-minded cronies. They are the ones who have lost relevance in Greensboro, and certainly on the blogosphere. BB

Bubba, in general I don't agree with the practice of banning commenters. I suppose I might do so if someone was repeatedly profane or indecent; or if threats were made. But otherwise there should be a free exchange. It is OK to set ground rules.

I have had commenters I have considered to be abusive, and who made unkind statements (or implied statements) about me, whom I have not banned.

I think sometimes it is best for commenter and blog host to voluntarily go their separate ways.

I hope you will use the opportunity to expand your posts on your own blog as an enhanced "conservative alternative".

I find it fascinating how the blogosphere has evolved over the few years since the N&R's John Robinson joined forces with Cone & the GSO Connettes - in what was a fairly "transparent" move the community to move forward a more "progressive" school of thought . . . like we were all going to jump on the Edwards train or something (i.e. embrace "T&R").

How thoroughly the plan has backfired is demonstrated by the voices who entered the fray and immediately challenged the empty, banal rhetoric for what it is.

I mean, what have ANY of these people acutally accomplished to CHANGE anything?

As an observation, the people who are really pushing the envelope of the status quo are almost universally politically conservative.

We have been called every name in the book to get us to shut up and "just go away". We've been marginalized and shoved to the sidelines . . . "banned" and/or delinked by the big guns. Yet we are still standing and posting and getting read.

It's not just about "liberal" or "conservative" (although politics & philosophy certainly factor into it). It's about power & influence in the blogosphere - who's had it and who wants to keep it.

It appears as if Ed was pressured into doing it was not so much by Bubba's challenge but egged on by the push from Jim Rosenberg et al so as not to lose face with those sympatico with his general views.

Bubba was one of the few conservative voices heard at Ed's blog. Spirited exchanges are part of the blog world and I happen to think Ed should reconsider this bannishment